Pentax Q Hands-on Preview

The Pentax Q is the smallest interchangeable lens camera on the market. And, just like the company's famously diminutive Auto 110 SLR from the late 70's, it achieves this by embracing a smaller format than its peers. Being built around a 1/2.3" sensor, the Q is a fraction of the size of even the smallest existing mirrorless cameras and is the first really pocketable model (though the protruding lens still means that'll have to be the pocket of your jacket, rather than your shirt or trousers).

To make clear what the rather opaque 1/2.3" figure actually means, it equates to a surface area of around 28mm2. This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras and 1/13th the size of the the APS-C format sensor in Sony's NEX. The advantage of this is that the lenses for the Q mount can be made a lot smaller than those for other systems, but the downside is that the image quality is more likely to resemble that of a compact camera than a DSLR.

You can glean a lot about Pentax's approach to the Q from the lenses it has announced: a 47mm equivalent F1.9 prime lens for the enthusiasts but accompanied with a healthy dose of fun in the form of two fixed focal length 'toy' lenses (a wide-angle and a telephoto version, both sub-$100). On the fun side of things there will also be a fisheye lens or, at the more serious end, a 28-83mm equivalent standard zoom with a built-in shutter, allowing flash sync at any shutter speed.

Coupled with the 47mm equiv. prime or the standard zoom the Q, with its sturdy magnesium-alloy build, appears to be offering an alternative take on the photographers' compacts such as the Canon G12, Olympus XZ-1 and even the Ricoh GRD. However, the fact that it can take different lenses means that in a matter of seconds it can be converted into a fun little camera that should still offer a more satisfying shooting experience than a mobile phone and image processing app.

And the Q is no toy camera, despite its modest sensor size it boasts a magnesium alloy body with rubber front coating, a 460,000 dot LCD on the rear and raw output in the DNG format. Interestingly, Pentax bucks the recent trend of trying to attract point-and-shoot users by removing those intimidating buttons with all those mysterious symbols on them, and includes plenty of external controls.

Pentax Q key specifications:

12.4MP back-illuminated CMOS sensor (1/2.3" size - 6.17 x 4.55 mm)

Q-mount interchangeable lens mount

12-bit DNG raw file option

3" 460,000 dot LCD

Sensor-shift image stabilization and dust-removal

1080p30 HD movie recording in H.264 format

5 frame-per-second continuous shooting capability

Quick-dial control giving access to four image settings

In-camera HDR option blends three images

Built-in flash

Flash hot shoe (also used for mounting optional viewfinder)

Front and rear IR remote sensors

Compared to the Sony NEX-C3

The Q's well-proportioned design makes it a little hard to work out how large it is until you see it in comparison to another camera. The sensor is around 1/13th the size of that in the NEX-C3 but does means it's the closest a mirrorless camera has yet come to being truly pocketable.

Placing the Q side-by-side with the NEX helps give some idea of how small it is, but taking the lens off also reveals how small its sensor is. The Pentax doesn't trigger quite the same wonder about how the engineers managed to fit so much into so little space - suggesting that there's a minimum size a camera can currently be, regardless of sensor size.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2011 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Comments

I have used this camera for about a month and I am very impressed. Prior to this, in the last few months, I purchased a Nikon J1 and then a V1 because I wanted a viewfinder.

This little thing (original Pentax Q) has made me forget about the lack of viewfinder. It is truly small and what I really like about it is:

1. Changing settings takes second, instead of 20 seconds with the J1/V1's multiple menus - this thing has dials and buttons!1a. Intuitive menu system - unlike the Nikon2. Size - this "thing" is truly portable, I carry it everywhere3. It is so complete - I do not have to pay another $160 for a flash! (V1)3a. Great Flash - powerful - the one on the V1 is so underpowered in comparison leaving anything outside of 3m looking dull 4. Great image color5. Great video6. The V1 feels like a brick when I pick it up - unusable - I am spoiled7. The prime lens is great.8. I have taken more (great) pictures in the last month than I have in the last year!

Why on earth would anyone want this thing? It has a 1/2.3 inch sensor. Thats like...a compact camera!What is the point of an interchangable lens camera if the image quality sucks?

You can get a normal compact camera with pretty good aperature and decent zoom, with a bigger 1/1.7inch sensor for quite a bit cheaper. Look at the XZ2 and LX7 and so on. Its just as pocketable, way more versatile, and cheaper, while retaining all the advanced features due to them being 'enthusiast compacts'.

I have just picked one of these up mint second hand with the 47mm f/1.9 fixed lens and have to say I love it.Its ergonomics and build quality are frankly amazingI shoot mostly in Aperture mode and I have direct access to A/E Lock and Aperture, one button press to ISO and Exposure Compensation my most used buttons.At launch RRP it was clearly overpriced and with the small sensor seemed like there was better value elsewhere but with prices coming down it makes more and more sense as a fun but serious photographic toolVery addictive, its hard to go back to bigger cameras regardless of ultimate image quality .If you are not fixated on resolution and IQ that goes beyond what is discernible in real life uses, the image quality is good enough and you can get on with focus on important things like what it is exactly you are shooting and composition, exposure and light which is what its supposed to be all about isnt it?

The fact is the Pentax Q marks the beginning of a new range or cameras, the camera has a brand new mount, it's a totally new concept and you've failed to review it.

In years to come when the format has evolved and people look back at this site they're going to wonder what your problem is. Why on earth you haven't reviewed the first ever compact interchangeable lens camera with a whole new mount. You have to admit that looks pretty bad for DPReview, and that's a shame, because DPReview is usually a good site.

Please review the Pentax Q, I think you owe it as much to your own credibility as you do to everyone who has waited all this time for one, and got nothing.

Failing to review the first in a line of cameras that has a new mount, is quite a failing.

Well, here we are, Pentax Q10 announced, most likely replacing the original Q and no DPR review still. Well done, not. Consistency in your reviews is rather important, if you want people to use you as a reference site, don't you think?

Shame on you, Digital Photo Review. Pentax Q at US399 (even less) could be an unique photo tool for every who want to explore new experience in photography, and you insist on rererereview the same kind of equipment time after time. Just bored. I will get this camera based on other more reliable site´s reviews.

Hey, the Q is now $399 with the 47mm f1.9 prime lens. Everyone I know or have spoken to who owns one loves the camera. I think the risk is quite low by now. If you like the Q, just buy one (I certainly plan to). Just don't expect it to be a K-5 or K-30.

Also, is Pentax quality ok? I read the K01 review and there seemed to be serious problems. I am concerned about this because I will buy it through Amazon and I live in South America where there is no presence of an authorized Pentax representative.

It's a pity that there will be no review for this little beauty. Seems like DPR decided that because it has a smaller sensor, it's not relevant. But so many people don't print these days, and cool photo blogs and Flickr galleries are all the rage. So I'm wondering does an ILC has to meet a certain sensor size threshold to earn a review? The Q offers big performance for it's size, easily beating some larger sensor P&S for IQ. Isn't that compelling enough to warrant a review?

When specs on paper are obvious, then the review is also obvious and that is kind of task DPR can deliver promptly, and make the majority their audience happy and content. But when you have a camera like a Pentax Q, or a Leica M9, or, when specs on paper and real life performance in hands of imaginative people are in discord, then DPR has a problem delivering a review that is understandable to its audience and not damaging to the camera brand.So DPR knows majority of their audience well, they know what they like by analysing clicks, most visited pages, etc. and are thus aware of their limits of comprehension too.

I would like to buy one but it is too expensive for me... I don't know where I can find one in India so I looked on ebay.in and it is around $800-$1200... I like the small concept. I am a 5feet tall female and carrying my Canon 40D with additional lenses is quite bothersome so I got Olympus EPL2. Olympus is just fine but I would like to buy something even smaller....I like the concept and the look of Pentax Q but I hope the sensor was bigger or 4/3...now I am no technical person as to why it can't be bigger...The price is the killing factor for me... :(

Having purchased the camera and shooting with it for awhile it is a pleasure to use. It's small size and build quality causes the owner to want to carry it everywhere thus never missing the opportunity for candid photography.I've achieved very impressive photos when using manual lenses with adapters. The video quality is quite good at 14 Mbps and opens up quite a bit of tele-video capabilities for those seeking long range videography.The image quality is on par with the current crop of point and shoot cameras but is underpar to the other interchangeable lens cameras.If you consider it a point and shoot camera with interchangeable lenses you'd have a good summation of the camera.......for some it will be worth it and for others it will not.

This thing is selling for $619 at the local camera store and $500 with free shipping on eBay, both with the 8.5mm kit prime. It's the same price as the X10 in the real world. They're both great cameras, imo.

Yes, those sample images are good but is this camera really relevant apart from it's novelty value? A Canon S95/100 is about the same size and offers a similar zoom range with its non-interchangable lens and allthough the lens options in the Pentax may be faster, the canon offsets this with better low light performance.Also, the portrait lens equivalent is not going to give shallow depth of focus meaning that really there is no point to having interchangable lenses on this camera.

A good fun toy for a child or novice but not even of much use to learn about the differences in the characteristics of lenses of different focal lengths. i.e. not even a good learning tool as an intermediate step from compact to DSLR or other interchangable lens system camera.

I have to say that I am amazed by those shots in the preview gallery posted today.

I really did not expect such quality.I also have to say that I agree with everything raised by Raist3d.

It seems that the quality of the results from tiny sensors has risen remarkably with the Pentax Q and the Fuji X10 especially when one considers that many in both galleries were taken at around 6MP rather than the full 10 or 12MP size.

I do however think that the cost is a problem to me and it's a shame because the sales of lenses would bring the total outfit cost up very high especially if you factor in a viewfinder which I find I must.

This makes the Fuji X10 a bargain even though tele range is limited somewhat.

I already have a robust, Minox-like Canon TX1 with a 39-390 mm equivalent zoom which will focus down to zero mm, and retracts behind a solid metal shutter when not in use. Its smaller than the Pentax Q. It is a very useful on-hand-at-all-times model which cost me a third the price of the Q, and I won't be tempted to buy other lenses and carry them with me.

The camera may be pricey but I think many here are missing a lot of points.

The sensor actually does better ISO than the LX5 or XZ-1. Yes, I have tried it from raw, both. And I have had the LX5 for well over a year so I know what I am saying here (and the LX5 is by no means a bad camera. We also need to get rid of the notion that talking good about a camera model necessarily means the other one s*cks).

Most here haven't even touched it. This camera is super well built and has superb ergonomics. I want to see how much the AF and startup has improved with the firmware upgrade- which it has.

Better photography is being done with an iPhone than many of the complainers about sensor size are doing here. The key thing to the Q is a sensor that allows at least a wide enough range of expression while keeping the smallest well built camera around with superb ergonomics. Good interface and ergonomics matter. This camera has those.

I would've bought this camera if it was Japanese made quality product. I have a ZX5n film camera that bought 15 years ago, Made in Japan quality, still as awesome as it was that first time I took it out of the box. On the other hand I own 2 Pentax digital cameras that are already showing signs of wear and problems, needless to say they were not manufactured in Japan. Forget Pentax, I am in line for the x10 as well, as long as the production models are made in Japan.

Like pcblade, I also had a play with a Q today. I am warming to it. beautifully made, tiny, well designed, and from the look of the images already taken, impressive performance, especially considering the sensor size. The toy lenses arn't actually toy's, yes they may be fixed aperture, and have no AF nor in-built shutter, but the optics are typical SMC-Pentax glass, ie high quality multi coated optics.

Still, the initial price is far too high!, and the as yet unhandled Fuji X10 may put the spanner in the works.

However, if you already have Pentax and want a well built pretty good performing camera that will work with all Pentax accessories that you have, it might be worth looking at. But only when that price comes down!

I've tested this afternoon and make some photos :- I've experienced some lag : time to focus and trigger the shooting ;- the raw are in DNG format ;- the noise is already present at ISO 125 in the dark areas ;- the camera is very small and nice looking ;- the build quality is great ;- they are some automatic corrections taking place with the 8mm f1.19 ;It's like a jewel : you can put it in your pocket and touch it to get the feeling of having a camera with you all time :)you can see some sample on my flickr account : http://www.flickr.com/photos/PeFClic/

I see a few commonalities, but the X10 feels so utterly different from the Q that the recurring comparisons don't ring true to me. They both look retro and they share some traits, but as cameras 'in the hand' (feel, size) they are so so different. And aside from the Euro-settler states, these two cameras seem to have different gender appeal.

Quality compacts like the XZ1 or the S95 have /bigger/ sensors, are just as pocketable, much less expensive than the kit, have a reasonable zoom range and glass is mostly just as fast throughout the zoom range.

Even if the sensor of the Q is better right now, the next generation of compacts will have the same sensor technology, but in a smaller package, and at a price not much higher than the Pentax standard zoom.

Why on earth should anyone buy this obscenity?

Which of these two cameras has a smaller sensor and costs twice as much?

The next generation of Q will also have a better sensor. It's how this game is played. What the other ultracompacts don't have is the ability to use different lenses, a better ergonomics/interface (despite the smalls size) and a better build.

From full sized samples seen in Flickr, the lenses are foggy even on a sunny day and contrast is woefully low. But those fixed lenses are optically well behaved perhaps due to simpler construction without those fuzzy optical artifects typical of zooms. But the coating and glass quality do not appear to be convincing. Was attracted by the rediculous small size but overall I am disappointed and will not pursue this.

@Duckie, visit a doctor and have your eyes checked. It seems you can not see properly. To a normal person whose eyes are alright there is no such problems. Lenses are not foggey, they are high quality lenses (normal and zoom). About the coating educate yourself about pentax's SMC coating, who knows even you might learn something.

Who told you anything from Pentax must automatically be acceptable and anthing else must be wrong? Your mother I guess? This outrageously laughable. Don't tell me you are fathered by one of those Pentax SMC coating engineers!

@Duckie, I tried and used the camera and seen the pictures that come out this camera. So based on my experience , you not only need to visit doctor for vision problems , you also need some mental help.

Saw the mockup today in a Tokyo camera store where there is a big promotion for it. It is another toy accessory for the people who want something different are willing to pay for it. Looks like one of those Minox minatures on steroids and will attract the eye of passers by.The FX 100 can at least do some serious photographic work and be a nice accessory. "Q" for Quirky.

Using today's sensor technology, it doesn't really make much sense. However, if and when sensor technology improves further, maybe someday a sensor this small will have enough sensitivity and dynamic range for most photographer. By then, the system will have more applications.

This camera makes absolutely no sense to me at all. With the small sensor, just go buy a fixed lens competitor from Canon,Panasonic, Olympus or Sony. Otherwise just go for the slightly larger cameras from the aforementioned companies, and it will be a much larger sensor.